Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3613 OF2016Rajendra Diwan ... Appellant versus Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Anr. .Respondents WITH AND CA. No.10214 OF2016C.A. No.3051 OF2017JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal, purportedly under Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act, is against an order dated 1.12.2015 of the Rent Control Tribunal at Raipur, confirming an order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Rent Control Authority, whereby an application filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the appellant tenant under Section 12 of the Rent Control Act has been allowed. 2 2. Appeal against an order of the Rent Control Section 13(2) of the Rent Control Act provides:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, a landlord and/or tenant aggrieved by any order of the Rent Controller shall have the right to appeal in the prescribed manner within the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1895; 1998(2)BLJR1497; (1998)2GLR1711; JT1998(3)SC184; 1998(2)SCALE745; (1998)4SCC409; [1998]2SCR795; (1998)2UPLBEC1320; 1995IBR118
Anand, J.1. In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra, : 1995CriLJ3994 , this Court found the Contemner, an advocate, guilty of committing criminal contempt of Court for having interfered with and 'obstructing the course of justice by trying to threaten, overawe and overbear the court by using insulting, disrespectful and threatening language', While awarding punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the contumacious conduct of the contemner, the Court said:'The facts and circumstances of the present case justify our invoking the power under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution to award to the contemner a suspended sentence of imprisonment together with suspension of his practice as an advocate in the manner directed herein. We accordingly sentence the contemner for his conviction for the offence of the criminal contempt as under:(a) The contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. However, in the circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC149; 1981Supp(1)SCC87; [1982]2SCR365
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. These writ petitions filed in different High Courts and transferred to this Court under Article 139 of the Constitution raise issues of great constitutional importance affecting the independence of the judiciary and they have been argued at great length before us. The arguments have occupied as many as thirty five days and they have ranged over a large number of issues comprising every imaginable aspect of the judicial institution, Voluminous written submissions have been filed before us which reflect the enormous industry and vast erudition of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and a large number of authorities, Indian as well as foreign, have been brought to our attention. We must acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to the learned Counsel for the great assistance they have rendered to us in the delicate and difficult task of adjudicating upon highly sensitive issues arising in these writ petitions. We find, and this is not unusual in cases of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon - 473 U.S. 234 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon No. 84-351 Argued March 25, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 234 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, who suffers from diabetes and has no sight in one eye, brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioners, alleging that petitioner California State Hospital denied him employment because of his physical handicap, in violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Section 504 provides that no handicapped person shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance under the Act. Section 505(a) makes available to any person aggrieved by any act of any recipient of federal assistance under the Act the reme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Myers v. United States - 272 U.S. 52 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) Myers v. United States No. 2 Argued December 5, 1923 Reargued April 13, 14, 1925 Decided October 25, 1926 272 U.S. 52 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. A postmaster who was removed from office petitioned the President and the Senate committee on Post Offices for a hearing on any charges filed; protested to the Post Office Department; and, Page 272 U. S. 53 three months before his four-year term expired, having pursued no other occupation and derived no compensation for other service in the interval, began suit in the Court of Claims for salary since removal. No notice of the removal, nor any nomination of a successor, had been sent in the meantime to the Senate whereby his case could have been brought before that body, and the commencement of suit was within a month after the ending of its last session preceding the expiration of the four years. Held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC753Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Contents I. The Writ Petition .................................................................................................. 4 II. Submissions ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Constitutional Interpretation ................................................................................. 6 IV. The Constitution of Emancipation, Equality, and Dignity ...................................... 9 V. The Contours of Article 14 ................................................................................. 17 VI. Non-Discrimination under Article 15 ............................................................... 23 VII. The Ban on Untouchability in Article 17 ...................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC545REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE/INHERENT JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.115 OF2004GENE CAMPAIGN & ANOTHER PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.840 OF2016CIVIL APPEAL NO.4086 OF2006CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.295 OF2007IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6 OF2016IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 of 2005 Writ Petition (Civil) No.115 of 2004 Etc. Page 1 of 260 JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J Table of Contents Acronyms ............................................................................................................................ 4 Preface: ................................................................................................................................ 7 Birds eye view of the controversy: ............................................................................. 9 Pleadings: ............................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC24REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.491 OF2022BILKIS YAKUB RASOOL ...PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.319 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.326 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.352 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.403 OF2022WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.422 OF2022JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA, J.Table of Contents Sr. Particulars Page No(s). No.1 Preface 3-5 2 Details of the writ petitioners 5-9 3 Factual Background 9-25 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 Etc. Page 1 of 251 4 Counter affidavit of State of Gujarat 25-47 5 Submissions 47-87 6 Reply Arguments 87-101 7 Points for consideration 101-251 (A) Re: Point No.1: Whether the petition 102-106 filed by one of the victims in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.491 of 2022 under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable?. (B) Re: Point No.2: Whether the writ petitions filed as Public Interest 106-117 Litigation (PIL) assailing the impugned orders of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2023INSC976IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION No.43 OF2022LOMBARDI ENGINEERING LIMITED PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UTTARAKHAND JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:1. This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act 1996) filed at the instance of a company based in Switzerland and engaged in the business of design consultancy seeking appointment of an arbitrator for the adjudication of disputes and claims emanating from the Contract dated 25.10.2019 entered into between the petitioner and respondent i.e., Uttarakhand Vidyut Nigam Limited (a wholly owned corporation of the Government of Uttarakhand). 1 FACTUAL MATRIX2 The petitioner is a design consultancy firm based in Switzerland, having its registered office at Via Del Tiglio 2, PO Box 934, CH934 CH6512 Bellinzona-Guibiasco, Switzerland and local Indian address at B3/61, 1st Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, D...
Tag this Judgment!